Re: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

Operationally, this is an open and shut case. 47 TLDs were added to the root in 1997, 31 TLDs
were added to the root in 1996. That means that we already have experience, with less advanced
processors and networking technology, with the addition of 78 TLDs in two years.

No one even noticed. Obviously, Kent himself was unaware of these facts.

The IETF claims that you have to get up to 10,000 new TLDs before they say they start to worry
about stability. The IETF is cautious to begin with, but let's be conservative and not go over
5,000, OK? Jon Postel himself proposed adding 150 in three years.

There is *no* operational reason for concern about TLDs when we are in the range of 100-500.
None.

Adding 100 does not change the status quo significantly. There are already 250.

Kent Crispin wrote:

> There are
> strong operational arguments against immediate creation of a large
> number of gTLDs -- adding one new gTLD will clearly not change the
> status quo much; adding 100 will change the status quo a lot.  Given
> that ICANN's number one priority is stability, evolutionary rather
> than revolutionary change is obviously preferred.  This sentiment is
> very widely held; at the same time, however, there is *very* strong
> sentiment supporting evolutionary change.

--
m i l t o n   m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u
syracuse university          http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/